4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Düsseldorf.
5.  The applicant and his brother are the only grandchildren and heirs of their grandmother who died in 1988.
6.  In a will recorded by a notary on 27 February 1982 the grandmother appointed the applicant and his brother heirs of her estate in equal parts and bestowed on the applicant’s brother, by means of a preferential legacy (Vorausvermächtnis), her participation in an enterprise. By a notarial deed of 2 December 1982 she supplemented the previous legacy and further assigned a plot of land with a house built on it to the applicant’s brother.
7.  On 4 May 1983 the grandmother concluded a notarial contract of inheritance (Erbvertrag) with the applicant. The contract amends the previous wills in so far as the applicant was assigned the grandmother’s deposit and securities accounts (Depot- und Wertpapierkonten) as well as her entire real property including the plot of land that had previously been bequeathed to the applicant’s brother.
8.  On 4 January 1984 the Charlottenburg District Court appointed a guardian for the then ninety-year-old grandmother. On 21 and 22 February 1984 the grandmother as well as the guardian challenged the contract of inheritance for error and fraudulent misrepresentation (Irrtum und arglistige Täuschung). They claimed that the grandmother had only entered into the contract because the applicant had pretended that this was necessary to achieve equal treatment for her grandsons, whereas in reality such equal treatment had already been achieved by her wills of 27 February 1982 and 2 December 1982.
9.  On 23 February 1988 the grandmother, represented by her guardian, instituted proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court (Landgericht) against the applicant, alleging that the contract of inheritance of 4 May 1983 was null and void.
10.  A hearing took place on 2 November 1988.
11.  On 22 February 1989 the applicant lodged a counterclaim.
12.  Following the grandmother’s death the applicant’s brother, by written submissions of 31 May 1989, declared that he wished to continue the proceedings as a plaintiff.
13.  By written submissions of 9 October 1989 the applicant requested that the action be dismissed and requested that his brother be obliged to consent to the division of the deceased’s estate pursuant to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the contract of inheritance dated 4 May 1983 since the latter was valid.
14.  A hearing that was scheduled for 31 October 1989 was not attended by the applicant’s brother and therefore postponed to 21 November 1989.
15.  On 28 February 1990 the Düsseldorf Regional Court ordered the hearing of witnesses including in particular the notaries who had recorded the wills and the contract of inheritance as well as the taking of an expert opinion regarding the value of the deceased’s participation in the enterprise. On 27 March 1990 the Chamber of Industry and Commerce suggested two possible experts.
16.  In the following, hearings had to be postponed on several occasions by the Regional Court on the ground that the witnesses were unable to attend at the scheduled dates or had to be exempted from their professional obligation of confidentiality.  On 7 November 1990 a hearing took place, on the occasion of which, inter alia, the notary who had been involved in the recording of the deceased’s legacies in 1982 was heard as witness.
17.  On 15 March 1991 the notary who had recorded the contract of inheritance of 4 May 1983 informed the Regional Court that he had meanwhile been exempted from his confidentiality obligation.
18.  On 25 June 1991 the applicant’s newly appointed lawyers requested access to the case files. They returned the files in August 1991.
19.  On 30 March 1992 the Regional Court heard the notary who had recorded the contract of inheritance of 4 May 1983.
20.  On 7 December 1992 following a renewed change of counsel, the applicant again requested access to the case files and a hearing scheduled for 23 December 1992 had to be postponed for this reason. By written submissions dated 5 March 1993 the newly mandated lawyers requested the Regional Court not to appoint an expert before a further hearing had taken place.
21.  On 8 March 1993 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 4 August 1993. At the applicant’s request of 8 April 1993 the hearing was postponed to 15 September 1993.
22.  By a decision of the Regional Court of 29 April 1993 the hearing scheduled for 15 September 1993 was cancelled since there was no basis for a friendly settlement between the parties.
23.  By a decision of 28 September 1994 the Regional Court specified its order for the taking of an expert opinion and by a decision of 19 January 1995 appointed the expert.
24.  In the period from December 1995 until August 1997 the applicant’s lawyers filed several requests to be granted access to the case files that had already been transmitted to the expert. Following examination of the files by the applicant’s lawyers, they were returned to the expert on 6 August 1997. The applicant further requested to be granted access to the files in the guardianship and curatorship proceedings with respect to the deceased and which had been conducted by the Berlin-Charlottenburg District Court.
25.  On 27 December 1997 and 26 January 1998, the Regional Court asked the expert for progress reports regarding the finalisation of his opinion. The expert announced submission of his report for 31 March 1998.
26.  Following further inquiries by the Regional Court on 28 April 1998 and 15 May 1998, the expert submitted two reports on 10 and 22 June 1998 respectively. On 16 and 26 June 1998 the Regional Court forwarded the respective expert opinions to the applicant and set a deadline of six weeks in each case for submission of any comments by the applicant or for a request to hear the expert.
27.  By written submissions dated 29 January 1999 and 31 August 1999 the applicant challenged the findings of the expert as to the value of the participation in the enterprise as well as the underlying method of calculation.
28.  On 8 September 1999 a final hearing took place.
29.  In its judgment of 20 October 1999 the Regional Court found in favour of the applicant’s brother and dismissed the counterclaim. It held that the contract of inheritance of 4 May 1983 had been duly challenged in accordance with the relevant provisions of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) and was thus invalid (unwirksam). In accordance with the testamentary legacies of 27 February and 2 December 1982, the Regional Court obliged the applicant to give his consent to the transfer of title to the participation in the enterprise as well as the plot of land specified in the legacies to his brother, and to release half of the deceased’s bank deposit and half of her real estate fund participations for the latter’s benefit.
30.  The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 November 1999.
31.  By written submissions dated 29 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht).
32.  A hearing took place on 16 June 2000.
33.  On 14 July 2000 the Court of Appeal made a proposal for a friendly settlement which was not accepted by the parties. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the assessment of the case would depend on the taking of further evidence regarding the question as to whether the contract of inheritance had been duly challenged or not.
34.  Hearings took place on 30 March 2001, 11 January 2002 and 1 March 2002.
35.  By a decision of 26 April 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered the taking of evidence with a view to further investigating the deceased’s motives when formulating her wills and with a view to determining the supposed amount of inheritance tax at the time when the contract of inheritance was concluded. On 9 October 2002 the expert was appointed and the finalised expert opinion was transmitted to the parties on 11 February 2003 for comments.
36.  On 18 July 2003 a further hearing was held.
37.  By written submissions of 21 July 2003 the applicant again argued that the expert opinions obtained at first instance were misleading and stressed that in view of the deviation from the expert opinions obtained by him on his own initiative the expert would have to be heard and a further expert opinion should be ordered.
38.  In its judgment dated 19 September 2003, the Court of Appeal obliged the applicant to give his consent to the passing of title to the deceased’s participation in the enterprise to his brother and dismissed the remainder of the claim as well as the counterclaim.
39.  The Court of Appeal stated that the interpretation of the contract of inheritance in the light of the deceased’s underlying intentions showed that she had not achieved her goal of treating her grandsons equally in financial terms. On the basis of the value of the participation as established by the expert opinion dated 10 June 1998 and by taking into account the supposed inheritance tax incumbent on the applicant’s brother as of this date, the court awarded the applicant an advance payment out of the inheritance as a compensation for the legacies made to his brother.
40.  As regards the applicant’s objection against the expert opinion the Court of Appeal argued that the value of the deceased’s participation in the enterprise could be deducted from the total market value of the enterprise as established by the expert and that there was no indication that the basis of calculation of the market value itself had been erroneous. It therefore held that it had not been necessary to hear the expert, in particular in view of the fact that the applicant did not make a corresponding request within the deadline set by the Regional Court at first instance.
41.  The Court of Appeal’s judgment was served on the applicant on 8 October 2003. The applicant’s objection against the judgment was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 2 December 2003.
42.  On 7 November 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) to grant him leave to appeal. He argued, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had been a surprise decision as the court’s interpretation of the contract of inheritance deviated from the court’s assessment of the case as set out in the friendly settlement proposal of 14 July 2000. Furthermore, the interpretation of the contract of inheritance by the Court of Appeal had been contrary to the principles governing the interpretation of wills and contracts of inheritance as established by German legal literature and jurisprudence. He further reiterated that the evaluation of the value of the deceased’s participation in the enterprise had been erroneous and that the judgment had thus as a whole been arbitrary. He finally asserted that it was necessary to obtain a further expert opinion.
43.  On 29 September 2004 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) rejected the applicant’s request to be granted leave to appeal stating that there was no indication that the interpretation of the contract of inheritance by the Court of Appeal had been arbitrary.
44.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. By a letter of 10 January 2005 the applicant’s counsel requested the Federal Constitutional Court to await his supplementary submissions before deciding on his complaint. On 29 July 2005 following an extension of the related time limit granted by the Federal Constitutional Court, the applicant submitted additional written observations. On 19 October 2005 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant on 28 October 2005.